The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1887-08-06
- BLUNDERING, Is IT2n

OF course, II Is heresy, In small way, in
the eyes of some people, to question the
infallibility of this good" investigating
committee, recently thrown ont of a fat
Job, right In the midst of dry season, and
the hay crop failure. However, as most
of the important indictments have been
quashed, II is perfectly Legitimate to take a
look at that part Of their work which
formed the basis of one indictment that
has been 9uashed.
The Idea suggested by the FREE TRADER
that the committee could have made any
blunders has been "spurned" with scOrn,'
both in the committees private illustrat
ed organ, as well as on the Board itself,
where Billy Dryer mercilessly scored +
G Lewis for daring to suggest that such u
thing might be.
But why should this committee be con.
sldered infallible by anybody, even by
themselves? There is not, as 1t proves, an
exnert accountant in the whole crowd, al
though 1t is fair to say that Dryer and
Maierhofer were considered as nearly ey.
perts as any of the members of the Board.
None of the rest of the committee could
be looked on as such. One of them, In
fact,-a chairman of committee (Of the
present Board to settle with county otlic-
er,-knew absolutely so little of the husi
ness that when, on one occasion, II appeared
tnat there was difference of some eight
to ten thousand dollars SAY between Mil
ligans earnings and receipts he eX,
claimed, Good God, did he steal all that"
Take this same account with Milligan
as Il sample of their "expertness. Common
people, when they set about settling long
account, as rule, go TO work 10y making
debit and credit sides TO that account 20
arrive at balance due. This Is the "old
fogy," fossil" way of doing things; but
these Performers" did Mt have to- do 1t in
that way at all. 1t was Mt necessary, Or
Norton did Mt know how.
That such an exhibit was not made Is
self evident from their report If they had
made such form OF account with Mill.
gan, they would have found he had "stolen"
less than they were pleased to report he did
steal; but II would have saved themselves
the exhibition of at least couple of ab.
surd plumbers, so Inconsistent with the idea
of the merest smattering of knowledge
of accounts on their part as to cast justly
founded suspicion on the value of their
work as whole.
For example the committee report
Milligan's bill of March term, 1884, by
items opp. 263 and 26il in their report at
March term as $S,6S2 81 but in their foot
ings they figure In this item as SlS,GS2 81!
1t is an error against Milligsn of only &c.,
600, but such mistake in addition Is, of
course, too triiling to be called "blunder"
This is not typographical error, but a
bluader that Is carried all through the re,
port by Maierhofer, who did the figuring.
In anStner pace uoWn near inc tail Gnu vi
the report, they charge Milligan with
81 1856 81, drawn from State Auditor, when,
in, fact, they had previously included that
amount In the item, three lines above lin
their report, of $l3,525O0 actually collect
ed In fees" Here are two blunders alone
which foot up total Of gil ,35691 against
Milligan--errors that are apparent on the
face of their own report. AS they only
claim a shortage of between $4,000 and
$4,000 by Milligan, a correction of these
two errors alone will make (by the com
mittee's own showing) the balance due
Milligan just about the amount he claims;
i. C., about s., 800! Therefore, In the light of
these figufes, how can the committee hope
to show that Milligan was a "boodler"g
Furthermore, in going over his accounts,
Milligan's attorneys have found between
80 and 80 errors on both sides OF the &C
count, made by him of fees not reported or
Of fees collected once but reported twice